2003 War in Iraq : Just or Unjust War - Term Paper Example

?Running Head: THE 20003 WAR IN IRAQ WAS UNJUST 2003 War in Iraq – Just or Unjust War of Introduction Whether the Iraqi War was justified or not remains a rather controversial public issue that has caused heated debates at the national as well as the international arena. While one line of argument supports the assertion that the war was justified, the opposing school of thought contains those of the opinion that the Iraqi War was not and cannot be justified whatsoever. In fact, there are those of the opinion that the Iraqi War begun long before March 2003. To those against the war, the United States and her allies such as Britain and Australia had been fighting Iraq for almost twelve years before the Iraqi War broke out in March 2003 (DeCosse, 2004). In fact, the U.S and Britain war against Iraq is believed to have begun following the Gulf War in early 1990s. The main reason for which this long war against Iraq has been given as the need for Britain, the U.S and their allies to destroy, change, and control the Iraqi society, particularly the huge reserves of oil and other fossil energies. Before the Iraqi War proper began in 2003, the U.S and her allies had also used their veto powers at the UN Security Council to impose economic sanctions and to derail and prevent medical and other supplies to the Iraqi people, thus worsening their situation during and after the Gulf War (DeCosse, 2004). This paper thus explores the assertion that the 2003 war in Iraq was an unjust one and should not have been waged in the first place. In arguing this point, the paper explores the rationales given by the Bush administration and its allies such as Australia and the UK, explaining the reasons these rationales were invalid and the real reasons the Iraq was invaded. The War against Iraq The beginning of the Iraqi War proper could be traced to the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Immediately after these attacks, the Bush administration quickly blamed Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, instantly declaring war on terrorism. Soon plans were underway to execute bomb raids in Afghanistan. Although the terror attacks were initially never connected to Iraq, by September 2002, it was apparent that the U.S government was bent on linking the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks to the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein (O'Connell, 2008). These assertions by the U.S authorities were relayed to the public and the whole world through media disinformation, which persuaded the U.S people that Iraq was actually behind the attacks. In fact, due to these disinformation campaigns, a relatively big portion of the U.S population believed that Iraq was actually behind the terror attacks on U.S soil (Bellavia, 2007). This group was particularly convinced by the government-media propaganda, which made them to believe that since Iraq had been involved in the September 11, 2001 attacks, then it would most likely carry out more such attacks in the future. Therefore, they had no alternative but to support the war against Iraq. In fact, the effects of this propaganda machine were evident in the rising number of those who believed that Saddam Hussein was behind the terror attacks on the United States of America, which increased to almost 70% by mid-2003 (O'Connell, 2008). Although President Bush would later admit in September 2003 that Saddam Hussein had no links with the September 11, 2001 attacks, the war was still be waged on the pretext that Iraq possessed certain Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Purportedly, these weapons were likely to be used against the United States and/or her interests elsewhere around the world. Alternatively, Iraq could give these WMD to terrorists to use against U.S and other western countries and interests. In fact, while addressing the nation on March 17, 2003, President Bush stated that U.S and other western states’ intelligence had confirmed that the Saddam-led Iraqi government was continuously processing, possessing, and concealing the most lethal of weapons, readying them for attacks on U.S and other western states (Haarman & Lombardo, 2011). President Bush also declared the existence of a group of nations willing to disarm the Iraqi regime, thus making the world a safer and more peaceful place, with reduced terror threats. However, the truth was that the U.S intelligence agencies such as the CIA, under the then Director James R. Woolsey never had any tangible and credible evidence or information linking Saddam Hussein with terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda (Gordon, 2006). The Real Reasons for the Iraqi War Hidden behind the reasons of WMD and Al-Qaeda were the real reasons for which the Iraqi War was waged, which included gaining control of Iraq’s oil fields. That is, the Bush administration intended to keep the oils underground and allow the prices to shoot up for economic benefits. The second reason for the war was for the U.S to establish a military base in Iraq from which it could control the Middle East and gain the eventual control of all countries that are dependent on oil. Moreover, the U.S wanted to eliminate or alleviate the threat to Israel posed by Iraq and other influential Arab nations in the Middle East. The U.S also feared the economic competition that Iraq’s oil trade with Europe would expose it to. That is, Iraq and other Middle Eastern states had started trading oil using the euro. In fact, all major oil traders had began trading using the euro, increasing the prospects of the euro becoming the world’s reserve currency, replacing the U.S dollar. Such a change would negatively impact on the U.S economy, even leading to the collapse of its economy. Furthermore; the U.S would not comfortably churn money into its military programs. By gaining control of the Iraqi oil trade, the U.S would refuse euro payments, thus ensuring the dollar remained the reserve currency for the world. The other minor reason for which the U.S waged the Iraqi War was Israel, which wanted to gain control of the region, hence used the U.S, which it also controls to remove the Iraqi threat to the supremacy it desired to establish in the Middle East. In other words, the United States was exploited by Israel to shape the environment in the Middle East by reducing the strength of the enemies of Israel, thus serving and promoting the interests of Israel. Therefore, the Iraqi War was actually conceived in Israel but waged by the United States and her allies. There were also the economic importance of waging the Iraqi War that the United States would enjoy, more so for its weapon manufacturers, who colluded with the government to start the war (Clapham, 2007). To these organizations, the sufferings, losses, and deaths that would result from the Iraqi War were nothing compared to the profits and growth they would enjoy (Zogby, 2007). Moreover, there would be economic profits during the reconstruction of Iraq. In fact, many U.S companies had been awarded billion-dollar tenders long before the Iraqi War began. Among these companies were Bechtel and Halliburton. It is worth noting that Dick Cheney had been the Chief Executive Officer of these two companies as late as the year 2000. Even though it was purported that countries such as Japan and European nations would pay for the reconstruction of Iraq after the war; it was obvious that the U.S taxpayer would pay the U.S companies undertaking the reconstruction of Iraq. In fact, it was not only U.S companies that scrambled for the lucrative contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq. From the above reasons among others, it is now apparent that the Iraqi War was never justified but was a long-established and planned geopolitical strategy of the United States and her allies such as Israel. That is to say, the Iraqi War was a strategy by the U.S to establish and gain domination over the world’s economic resources, in particular, the oil resources of the Middle East. Although it had been forthcoming for quite some time, the plan was made public in the National Security Strategy of the United States of America, published in September 2002 (Van Bellinghen et al., 2010). . By waging the war against the Iraq, the U.S government did not only go against the wishes of a sizeable portion of the U.S people and the world population but also refused to respect matters related to international laws and the sovereignty of other countries. In this regard therefore, the Bush administration gave itself and reserved the mandate, right, and authority to invade any country and overthrow any regime it considered its enemy. In fact, the trend set by the Iraqi War is that the United States reserves the right to invade any country that is perceived to be hostile to it or might become unfriendly to the U.S and its interests around the world (Ricks, 2006). Targeted by this policy of the Bush administration were failed states, be they former colonies or third world countries that have been impoverished by the predatory imperialist policies of major world powers such as the U.S and its European allies. However, the war against Iraq was perceived by many as Bush’s and U.S’s preparation to wage wars with bigger and more formidable and powerful countries. The Iraqi War was thus one of the strategies and policies of the U.S’s drive for world domination. There are those who are of the opinion that the Iraqi and the Afghani Wars were just preparations for a bigger war to come, may be World War III (Dadge, 2006). The Testimony of the Chief US and UN Weapons Experts No one gave a clearer indication of the unjust nature of the Iraqi War than the chief U.S weapon investigator Charles Duelfer who testified before the Congress on October 6, 2004. According to Duelfer, there was no evidence of any WMD in Iraq at the time the U.S invaded Iraq. In addition, Duelfer testified that Iraq under Saddam Hussein had no capacity and capability to use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. In any case, earlier UN inspections in mid-1990s had eliminated Saddam’s capability to produce and use such weapons (Zwier & Weltig, 2005). Therefore, Duelfer rendered Bush’s, Howard’s, and Tony Blair’s assertions that Iraq constituted significant threat to the world untrue. According to Duelfer, Saddam may have wanted nuclear and biological or chemical weapons for defense against nuclear-armed neighbors such as Israel and Iran (North, 2009). Moreover, added Duelfer, Saddam was most likely waiting for UN-imposed sanctions to be lifted before he reconstituted Iraqi’s weapons programs (CNN, 2004). That is, according to Duelfer, at the time the Iraqi War begun, there was no evidence of any weapons programs in Iraq. Therefore if the presence of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons in a country or the intention to acquire one were enough reasons to wage a war against a country, then Iran and Israel should have been invaded long before Iraq. The argument in this regard therefore is that Israel and Iran had nothing of economic value for which the U.S and its allies could invade them, contrary to Iraq, which had vast oil reserves (CNN, 2004). Additionally, Iraq’s was just a policy of nuclear deterrence, championed by the U.S itself. It was thus strange that the same nuclear deterrence policy would result in Iraq being invaded. Allowing Iraq to establish and develop its nuclear deterrence policy would have threatened Israel and reduced her domination of the Middle East. In fact, Israel’s tendency to do as it wishes, of course with the help of the United States, would have been threatened had Saddam proceeded and succeeded with his nuclear deterrence policy. There is thus a general belief that U.S’s foreign and military policies are twisted to favor Israel first since the policymakers appear more loyal to Israel so that their first priority would be to eliminate any real or perceived threat to Israel first instead of considering the effects of their actions on U.S citizens and the rest of the world (Ellis, 2010). Later during the testimony by Duelfer, he was forced by a Republican Senator John Warner to state that the world was a better place with the removal of Saddam Hussein, a statement that was false. For instance, after the Iraqi War, millions of Iraqis were left without adequate food, water, electricity, and lived in constant fear for their lives. The U.S soldiers returning from Iraq would also have traumatic experiences similar to those of Vietnam veterans. In addition, after the Iraqi War, the possibility of a civil war breaking out in Iraq was rather high, increasing tension, suspicion, and fear among the Iraqi clans (Bing & Smith, 2003). That the world was a better place with the removal of Saddam Hussein was further refuted by the fact that the U.S was hated more than before the war begun. The war crimes that the U.S committed in the Iraqi War are perhaps the main reasons for the increased hatred towards the U.S and could also be used as rationales for asserting that the Iraqi War was unjust. Among the war crimes leveled against the U.S in Iraq include the violation of international laws and customs about war and prisoners of war. These laws and customs included but were not limited to the murders, ill-treatments, and deportations of civilian populations during war (Bing & Smith, 2003). The reckless destruction of Iraqi villages, towns, and cities by the U.S military were just examples of humanitarian abuses meted out by U.S forces in Iraq. Also supporting the argument that the Iraqi War was unjust were the UN weapons experts assigned to investigate WMD in Iraq. According to these experts, the evidences they had in hand in 2004 were not enough to call for the aggression against Iraq. In fact, according to Hans Blix who oversaw the investigation of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq, the evidence available in March 2003 when the war broke out was quickly falling a part and did not warrant a war (Clapham, 2007). According to Blix, the evidence given by the Secretary of State Collin Powell was quite insufficient, an opinion he shared with many officials, including the national security adviser Condoleezza Rice. Unfortunately, they chose to ignore his opinion and advice. Also to add his advice was Mohammed El-Baradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency. According to El-Baradei, Iraq had not resumed its nuclear weapons programs since it was dismantled in 1997 (CNN, 2004). Conclusion The 2003 war in Iraq started courting controversies on its legitimacy and justification long before it begun. Pitted against each another were those supporting and those opposing the war. Leading the proponents of the war was President Bush and his allies such as Prime Ministers Howard of Australia and Blair of England. Generally, the war was considered unjust by not only humanitarian groups but also U.S and U.N weapons inspectors who concurred that at the beginning of the war, there was not enough evidence to link Saddam or Iraq with the September 11, 2001 terror attacks on U.S., the Al-Qaeda, or the purported WMD. Interestingly, the Iraqi War of 2003 has been seen to have had economic and political domination by Israel and the United States as its core objectives, given the fact that no WMD were found in Iraq or any terror links with Al-Qaeda. A strong argument cited to support the assertion that the Iraqi War was unjust was the need for the U.S to control Iraq’s vast oil reserves and Israel to maintain its domination in the Middle East, of course with the help of the U.S, which seems to put the interests of Israel before those of its own people. References Bellavia, D. (2007). House to House: an epic of urban warfare. Simon & Schuster. Bing, W., and Smith, R. L. (2003). The march up: taking Baghdad with the 1st marine division. New York: Bantam Books. Clapham, A. (2007). Human Rights: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions), first edition. USA: Oxford University Press. CNN (2004) “Iraq war wasn't justified, U.N. weapons experts say” Retrieved February 29, 2012 from http://articles.cnn.com/2004-03-21/us/iraq.weapons_1_nuclear-weapons-hans-blix-iaea?_s=P Dadge, D. (2006). The war in Iraq and why the media failed us. Praeger DeCosse, D. (2004) Totaling Up; It Was an Unjust War. Retrieved on February 29, 2012 from http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/ethicalperspectives/unjust.html. Ellis, D. (2010). Children of war: voices of Iraqi refugees. Groundwood Books. Gordon, M. (2006). Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq Haarman, L., and Lombardo, L. (2011). Evaluation and stance in war news: a linguistic analysis of American, British and Italian television news reporting of the 2003 Iraqi war (corpus and discourse). Continuum. North, R. (2009). Ministry of defeat: the British war in Iraq 2003–2009. Continuum. O'Connell, E. (2008). Counterinsurgency in Iraq: 2003–2006. Rand. Ricks, T. (2006). Fiasco, the American military adventure in Iraq. Penguin. VanBellinghen, J., Durante, C., and Strozier, M. S. (2010). 330 days: the uncensored war in Iraq. World Audience, Inc. Zogby, J. (2007). Four years later: Arab opinion troubled by consequences of Iraq war. Arab American Institute. Zwier, L. J., and Weltig, W. S. (2005). The Persian Gulf and Iraqi wars (Chronicle of America's Wars). Lerner Publishing Group. Read More